I haven’t been posting much lately as I’ve been busy with other things. I have, however, recently come across this article about the work of Stephan Lewandowsky. He is a cognitive scientist in the School of Experimental Psychology at the University of Bristol. He has published a couple of papers about why some people seem to reject (deny?) many of the findings of climate science. The post that I’m reblogging is reporting on a couple of his papers and suggesting that there is a link between having a libertarian (free-market) ideology and rejecting climate science. If you’ve read any of my other posts, you’ll know I have real issues with the basic tenets of free-market thinking and with those who reject climate science, so this post certainly gels with my thinking and it is interesting that it is based on published work in cognitive science. Doesn’t make it right, I guess, but I would recommend giving it a read.
In a previous post (REF prediction) I looked up the h-indices and the citations per publication for all Physics and Astronomy departments included in RAE2008. I ranked them in terms of their h-index, in terms of their citations per publication, and as average of these two. It looked alright but I did comment that one could produce something more sophisticated. At the time I did worry that using just the h-index would disadvantage smaller departments, but I couldn’t really think of what else to do and it was just a very basic exercise.
Deevy Bishop has, however, suggested an alternative way of ranking the departments. This is to basically relate the income they get with their h-index. For example, in RAE2008 each department was ranked according to what fraction of their papers were 4*, 3*, 2*, 1* and U. The amount of funding they received (although I think it technically went to the university, rather than to the department) was then scaled according to N(0.1×2* + 0.3×3* + 0.7×4*) where N was the number of FTEs submitted. This data can all be downloaded from the RAE2008 website. Deevy Bishop did an analysis for psychology and discovered that the level of funding from RAE2008 correlated extremely well the department’s h-index. What was slightly concerning was that the correlation was even stronger if one also included whether or not a department was represented on the RAE2008 panel.
I’ve now done the same analysis for Physics and Astronomy. I’ve added various figures and text to my REF prediction post, but thought it worth making it more prominent by adding it to a new post. The figure showing RAE2008 funding plotted against h-index is below. According to my quick calculation, the correlation is 0.9. I haven’t considered how this changes if you include whether or not a department was represented on the RAE2008 panel. The funding formula for REF2014 might possibly be N(0.1×3* + 0.9×4*). I’ve redone the figure below to see what the impact would have been if this formula had been used instead of the RAE2008 formula. It’s very similar and – if you’re interested – it’s included at the bottom of my REF prediction post. It does seem that if all we want to know is how to distribute the money, relating it to a department’s h-index seems to work quite well (or at least it would have worked well if used for RAE2008). I’m not quite sure how easy it would be to produce an actual league table though. Given that the REF2014 formula may depend almost entirely on the fraction of 4*, one could simply divide the h-index by the number of FTEs to get a league table ranking, but I haven’t had a chance to see if this produces anything reasonable or not. Of course, noone really trusts league tables anyway, so it may be a good thing if we don’t bother producing one.
Despite my rather unpleasant encounter with another commentator on the Watts Up With That site, I find myself slightly addicted to going back and checking for new posts and comments. It’s not because I enjoy it. I think it’s because I’m still slightly shocked about the encounter I had a few days ago and just wanted to see if such encounters are common or not. I didn’t search very hard, but I did find a number of fairly aggressive exchanges between some commentators.
What I found most “interesting” is the style of the rhetoric. Quite a few posts were extremely condescending and regularly seem to contain things like “couldn’t stop myself from smiling/laughing/grinning at how silly” some climate scientist had been. On almost every single post, the first set of comments would invariably be short, snappy, snarky, sarcastic remarks about how idiotic or stupid a particular study had been. It seems like an online version of mob rule. A classic example of confirmation bias. Noone who was critical of a some piece of climate science ever seemed to say “… but this aspect of the work looks interesting.” It was almost always complete dismissal. If this really is a group of people who claim to be interested in engaging in scientific discussions to better understand the science of climate change, they’re certainly going about it in a way that I don’t think any scientist I know would recognise as suitable.
There also seem to be some commentators who dominate the discussions. The one I encountered (richardscourtney) seems to be held in quite high regard. The impression I have is that he sees himself as some grand figure who is there to clarify things for those who are uncertain about something, and to challenge those – in the interests of science – who make statements with which he disagrees. His style of rhetoric is regularly aggressive but also extremely sarcastic. Thanking people for responding to something and then launching into some attack on what’s been said. What’s ironic, is that he often claims to be challenging unsubstantiated statements by making mostly unsubstantiated statements of his own. It’s as if by saying something forcefully and definitely it makes his statement true, while another person’s statements are somehow anti-scientific nonsense. His comments also have lots of “NO!” and boldface words to, I assume, make his statements more authoritative.
One of the common themes on the Watts Up With That site is that there is something fundamentally wrong with climate scientists. They’re either lying, or incredibly stupid, or naive, or subconsciously influenced by some inherent bias in the climate science community. They simply can’t be trusted and need to be constantly mocked or verbally abused! I was interested to see a post claiming that Weather – not climate – caused the brief surface melt in Greenland last summer. This paper was quite well received. The lead author on the paper was Ralf Bennartz, a Professor at the University of Wisconsin. I then discovered another post called Old models do a bad jobs so a new models says “warming must be worse”. This was about a paper describing attempts to include – more realistically – the influence of clouds in climate models. This post seemed to have the normal level of mockery, and the comments seemed to be particularly dismissive of this work. But hold on a minute, one of the authors seems to be the same Ralf Bennartz who was lead author on what was an acceptable paper suggesting that weather, not climate, influenced ice cover in Greenland last year. I’m not suggesting that you’re not allowed to criticise one paper by a particular person while regarding a different of their papers as being quite good. What I do think, however, is that you can’t accuse climate scientists of being inherently dishonest and then regard positively a paper by a climate scientist if it happens to say something that suits your ideology.
Now, I imagine that if any credible scientists were actually to read this post, they would probably think – “did you expect it to be different?”. Well, I’ve read enough about climate change to have been aware that this was a distinct possibility. I think I had hoped that maybe it would be possible to engage with climate skeptics in a manner that was at least consistent with decent scientific discourse. I don’t think you need to change someone’s mind in order to make such an exchange worthwhile. It does seem, according to my experience at least, that this is virtually impossible on the Watts Up With That site. I should acknowledge that there may well be other sites that support the results of climate science on which it would also be difficult. That, however, doesn’t excuse the behaviour of those on the Watts Up With That site. The other thing I would say is that I don’t like the idea of being criticial of something without at least having some personal experience that justifies such a criticism. Having both read a number of posts and a large number of comments on the Watts Up With That site, and after a rather unpleasant exchange with one of their regular commentators, I certainly feel justified in being highly critical of the manner in which the site both presents and discusses climate science. It’s quite amazing that it seems to have won a “Best Science Blog” 3 times. Just as many scientists would be happy to acknowledge that the paper with the most citations isn’t necessarily the best paper, I suspect that many would also agree that winning a “Best Science Blog” award doesn’t guarantee that you’re actually the best science blog. I certainly hope that’s the case because heaven helps us if this is indeed the best science blog.
For a while now I’ve been reading posts on Anthony Watt’s blog, Watts Up With That. This is a site that is extremely skeptical (to put it mildly) that man is having any influence on our climate and often claims that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a conspiracy put forward by climate scientists. Just in case you’re not familiar with my other posts, I am not particularly skeptical of the results of climate science. Let my also clarify why I write it that way. I’m a scientist, therefore skepticism is a good thing. As with any science area (particular ones that relate to very complex systems) I’m sure that there are aspects of climate science that will turn out to be wrong or have some kind of error and that the models will change as more data is collected and as more techniques are developed for determining past temperature histories.
Anyway, so I started making a few comments on the Watts Up With That site. I commented on a post by Nancy Green, called Marcott – 3 spikes and you’re out, which was using an analogy between astronomers detecting planets around other stars and the ability to detect warm periods of less than 300 years in the Marcott et al. (2013) data. To be fair, I initially misunderstood the analogy being used and was happy to acknowledge this when corrected by another commentator. I don’t think that an analogy really proves a scientific point and I think that the post missed that even though the resolution of the Marcott et al. (2013) data is – when smeared – about 300 years, this doesn’t mean that warm periods that are shorter (but comparable) would have no effect whatsoever.
I then made a comment on a post titled On Guemas et al. (2013) “Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade”. This post referred to the abstract of a recent paper. The abstract indicated that the paper is about a new model that supports the idea that the reason that the global surface temperatures have risen more slowly than expected (or more correctly, that there hasn’t been a statistically significant increase in surface temperatures since the mid 1990s) is because energy has been going into the oceans. The abstract then uses the term “retrospective prediction”.
Many of the comments that followed seemed to mockingly dismiss the term “restrospective prediction”, suggesting that it’s easy if you already know the answer. I then commented that this was a little surprising given that retrospective prediction was just basically asking the question “what would my model have predicted had I only used data up to some point in the past” and then comparing what it predicts with what actually happened. It seemed like a pretty innocuous comment. I wasn’t commenting specifically on the paper. I wasn’t commenting on climate science as such. I was commenting on what seemed to me to be a pretty standard practice in many areas of science. I didn’t even suggest that the authors of the paper in question had done this properly or even suggest that their model had any merit or not. I ended a bit provocatively by suggesting that mocking such a process either indicated ignorance or a bias against anything with which the commentators disagreed. In a sense, I had intentionally chosen to make a comment that shouldn’t really be all that controversial. People could agree with it without having to change their views about climate science.
I had a few responses, one of which actually acknowledged that it was a fair point. However, I did get one response from someone using the name richardscourtney. I assume that this is the same Richard S Courtney mentioned in DeSmogBlog. I don’t know for certain that it is, but it seems that it may well be. I appreciate that I blog anonymously, so I aim to refrain from making any personal comments about this individual. Everything I say from now on is my opinion of something that, currently, is in the public domain.
This person’s comment was extremely forceful. It claimed that what I had said was ridiculous and an example of pseudo-scientific nonsense. I responded very briefly by saying that their comment was “Interesting” and that I would say “no more”. They then responded by saying that they knew why I wouldn’t respond and everyone else will too. I pointed out that they probably did not know. It certainly wasn’t that I couldn’t think of a suitable response; it was based on a sense that there wasn’t much point engaging if I was unlikely to learn something and if the other party seemed unwilling to consider learning anything either. I don’t think anything I had said was particularly insulting and I made sure to make it clear that what I was saying was an opinion, rather than a fact. This commentator then continues by accusing me of being an anonymous troll posting “untrue nonsense”. The next few comments then get even more vitriolic insisting that I apologies for my unscientific statements. After a few more exchanges (in which I think I maintain an element of decorum while being robust) his final statement is that I came there as a troll to “mislead”, “misinform” and “disrupt”. That he is interested in “promoting science” and that he will “expose psuedo-scientific nonsense” when used to “attack science”. Unless they get removed, you can follow the link to the post in question, read them yourself, and make up your own mind.
I found this all quite remarkable. To be accused of attacking science simply because I wouldn’t respond to what was essentially an attack on my initial comment was amazing. The irony of someone insisting that I apologise for a comment while at the same time accusing me of being anti-scientific. In some sense, I’m still not quite sure what to make of this. To a certain extent, I find it quite disappointing. I don’t agree with much of what is written on the Watts Up With That site, but that doesn’t mean that I think it shouldn’t be written. Also, although I expected some robust discussions if I did make comments on the site, I didn’t quite expect anything like this. I specifically chose to make comments that I thought would not be particularly controversial. I was reasonably robust in some of my responses to richardscourtney, but said nothing that was specifically insulting and was always open to the possibility that they might rein in their rhetoric slightly. In fact, I’ve had discussions of this kind before and normally both parties start to tone things down in the hope that some kind of agreement could be reached. This just seemed to be escalating. I have since found this post called The continuing misadventures of Richard S Courtney: (Non) Scientist. This seems to suggest, if richardscourtney is indeed Richard S Courtney, that this is his normal style of engagement. It also suggests that he may not be entirely honest about his scientific credentials – although I have no idea if this is true or not.
The person called richardscourtney wanted me to respond to their comment, which I refused to do. I will, however, comment below and they are welcome to respond if they ever encounter this post. I have never moderated a comment before and would like not to have to do so. I will allow some leeway but will moderate anything that is particular offensive or insulting. Here is my basic response.
Firstly, the response by richardscourtney had very little to do with what I had actually said in my original comment. The response refers to a difference between a model prediction and observed reality suggesting a flaw in the model. I made no mention of how well the model represented reality. I was not, specifically, referring to what had been done in the Guemas et al. paper. How could I? All we had was the abstract. My point was very simply that if you develop a model that you wish to use to predict the future evolution of something, it is entirely reasonable to consider how it would have performed in the past. Consider a hypothetical situation in which we have data for something from some initial time up until 2013. To test the model, use data only from before (for example) 1990 and then use your model to predict what would happen between 1990 and 2013. This can then be compared with what actually happened. This is not pseudo-science. It is a perfectly reasonable way to test a model.
What do I make of all this? I think what I was hoping was that someone else might step in and try to defuse the situation slightly. Surely some of the other commentators would like the site to include robust but decent debates that don’t include accusation of trolling and claims that what’s been said is pseudo-scientific nonsense. If others on that site think that this type of exchange is appropriate, then that says more about their credibility and decency than about mine. In general I think Anthony Watts’s views about climate science and global warming are generally wrong, but I always thought that he was at least willing to engage in a manner that was conducive to a reasonable debate. If he condones such behaviour on his blog, then I certainly don’t think that he can claim to be genuinely interested in finding out the “truth” about the science of climate change.
I came across an article by Ross McKitrick in the Financial Post called We’re not screwed. It is essentially a response to the media coverage of the Marcott et al. (2013) paper in Science that I wrote about in an earlier post.
What I found a little surprising is that Ross McKitrick is a Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph. It’s not that I think that economists shouldn’t discuss climate change but – in the article he wrote for the Financial Post – he was being quite specific with his criticisms of the methods used by Marcott et al. (2013). I’m sure he’s a bright person, but climate science is difficult and it seems quite presumptuous that a Professor of Economics somehow thinks that they know better than professional climate scientists (I could be snide and suggest that if economists were unable to predict a global economic catastrophe they should be slightly careful about assuming that they can make predictions about global warming, but that wouldn’t really be fair).
One of Ross McKitrick’s colleagues (in the sense that they’re written articles together) is Stephen McIntyre who has a BSc in Mathematics and an MA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. It’s starting to seem to me that a number of those who are skeptical of the claims of climate science have backgrounds in economics. I looked at the website of the Global Warming Policy Foundation one of who’s founders is Lord Lawson, an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. About 8 of their academic advisors have some background in economics. It appears – to me at least – that economics is more highly represented than any other single discipline.
I haven’t done a proper study to see if there really are more economists who are climate skeptics than any other discipline, but it does seem that way. One of the claims that climate skeptics make is that climate scientists are biased and benefit from suggesting than anthropogenic global warming is real. I find it surprising that noone has really tried to make the counterclaim that it is odd that so many climate skeptics happen to have a background in economics. One reason may simply be that scientists don’t typically want to spend their time debating educated lay-people who think they know better. Normally you can ignore such people and they simply go away. When they have influence and can get their views presented in somewhat reputable media outlets, it’s not that simple. I don’t really think that climate scientists should engage in a battle with those who are skeptical. It’s not really their role and the science will eventually be settled. It’s just a little disappointing that those who have little explicit experience with climate science (or with science at all) somehow seem to have credibility with certain sectors of society. Maybe it’s because they’re saying what that sector wants to hear?
There seems to be quite a lot of rhetoric about the cost of climate policies with many essentially suggesting that it will cost a lot of money and that it is some kind of government conspiracy. There is even a Fox Business News report titled The Green Tyranny which seems to be suggesting that government regulations have gone too far.
Something that has always confused me about this is that providing energy is always going to cost money. Extracting fossil fuels is not free and so that it will cost money to provide alternative energy sources is obvious. The real questions should be is it more expensive than using fossil fuels, what is the long-term cost compared to fossil fuels, and how does it compare – environmentally – to fossil fuels (or, what are the additional costs). Of course, I think that increasing CO2 levels in our atmosphere is leading to climate change and that we should be acting to mitigate this as soon as possible. However, even if you disagree, fossil fuels will eventually run out or become extremely expensive to extract, and so developing alternative technologies seems to make sense. The question is, should we start now, or can we wait. I think we should be starting now, but I’d be happy to hear arguments as to why we should be waiting.
There is another factor though – in my view at least – and that is whether or not you need to import oil and gas in order to provide your energy needs. I found the two figures below on the Energy Administration Information website. The top shows the UK’s natural gas production and consumption from 2000 to 2011 and the bottom shows the same for oil. What is clear is that until about 2004, the UK was producing more natural gas and oil than it was consuming. Today we only produce about 60 – 70 % of what we use and the fraction appears to be dropping quite dramatically.
This clearly means that we must be importing a significant fraction of the natural gas and oil that we use. What does this cost? I found the figure below on a website called The Oil Drum. It shows the UK’s trade balance in energy products and shows that until 2004, there was an oil and gas trade surplus. Today there is a deficit. We’re spending about £5 billion per year to import oil and gas. What’s more, in 2000 there was a trade surplus in energy products. Today it makes up 15 – 20% of the total trade deficit and – as far as I can tell – will continue to increase as we import more and more of our oil and gas.
What I’m suggesting is that even if you don’t feel that we should be worried about climate change, surely you should be concerned about the UK’s increasing need to import oil and gas. We’re currently spending about £5 billion a year importing oil and gas and it seems (given that the fraction we can produce is decreasing quickly) that this is likely to increase. Wouldn’t it be better if we could spend this money paying people in the UK to develop and maintain alternative energy sources? I think it would, but feel free to let me know if you disagree.
A recent article in the Guardian reported that 2012 saw the second highest annual rise in CO2. This was 2.67 parts per million (ppm) measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory on Hawaii. The article also included a link to a paper published in Science that presented reconstructions of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 Years (Marcott et al., 2013, Science, 339, 1198-1201).
It seems as though many who are skeptical (deny) man-made climate change often say things like “where is the paper that says ….”, so I thought I would highlight some of the results presented in this paper. Below I reproduce the abstract. Quite a balanced abstract containing a summary of the results and a conclusion, at the end, that suggests that by 2100 the global surface temperatures will be higher than at any time in the past 11,300 years.
Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.
Below is one of the main figures from the paper. It shows the temperature anomaly and compares various different methods. The left-hand panel goes back 2000 years, while the right-hand panel goes back 11,300 years. There is good agreement between the different methods and it seems clear that the temperature anomaly today is higher than it has been for the past 2000 years.
It, however, appears (from the righ-hand panel in the above figure) that there may have been periods during the Holocene when the temperature may have been higher than it is today. However, I include – below – some of the concluding text from the paper.
Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P. Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack (35) (Fig. 3), regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean for the A1B scenario (35) based on our Standard5×5 plus high-frequency addition stack (Fig. 3).
Probably the strongest statement is that within the past century global average temperatures have gone from some of the coolest of the last 11,300 years to some of the warmest. If this continues, as is expected, by 2100 global average temperatures will be significantly higher than the mean of the Holocene. Here we have a very recent peer-reviewed paper in a major scientific journal saying that within the next 100 years, average global temperatures will be higher than they’ve been for the last 11,300 years. The paper doesn’t actually say that such high temperatures could have a catastrophic effect on man, but I think we can probably conclude that it won’t be ideal.